|
Complex Business Litigation | Government Enforcement | Intellectual Property | Securities
Who are we and what do we do?
In January 2005, Ropes & Gray combined with the preeminent intellectual
property boutique Fish & Neave. Our IP litigators represent clients in every
area of IP law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade dress, trade
secrets, and unfair competition. Our litigation practice extends from trial practice
in the Federal District Courts to appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. |
 |
|
Paul
Schoenhard (Harvard Law School '03), Kris Cheney (University of Virginia School of Law '05), Kevin
Post (George Washington University Law Schoo '05l),
and Nicole
Jantzi (George Washington University Law School '02),
are associates in our Washington, DC, office who work on
patent litigations for Motorola in the field of wireless
communications. To read about Nicole's hands-on experience
on this case, click here. |
|
Our litigators have been on the
cutting edge of technology and intellectual property law for
more than 125 years. Ropes & Gray was ranked the
number one IP practice in the United States in surveys conducted
by Chambers and Partners. Many of our IP litigation partners
are listed in The Best Lawyers In America, and several are
fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers. We've litigated
nearly 500 patent cases in the last decade alone, which translates
to experience no other firm can match.
|
 |
|
Our lawyers are authorities in the field. The Federal Judicial Center provides every federal judge in the country with a copy of Patent Law and Practice, a primer on patent law authored by partner Herb Schwartz. |
Our early clients were pioneers named Edison and the Wright Brothers. Today, we represent household names like XM Satellite Radio, AstraZeneca, and Gemstar-TV Guide, and multinationals like Sanyo and British Telecom. We also represent individual inventors and start-ups — tomorrow's leaders in the fields of semiconductors, computers, telecommunications, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. |
 |
|
After having successfully represented Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell in patent cases involving the light bulb and telephone, Frederick Fish persuaded the trial and appellate courts that the Wright Brothers' 1906 patent on a "Flying Machine" was valid and infringed. |
 |
|
Sasha
Rao (New York University School of Law '96) is an IP litigation partner in our Palo Alto office. |
What have we done lately?
|
 |
 |
|
- Won a Federal Circuit affirmance of our landmark victory in the Lemelson case invalidating 14 “machine vision” and “bar code” patents issued to Jerome Lemelson. A thousand other companies chose not to challenge the patents and paid Lemelson $1.5 billion in royalties. Our clients hired us instead and didn't pay a dime.
We flew our 2005 IP litigation summer associates to Washington to watch partner Jesse Jenner give his historic — and winning — oral argument at the Federal Circuit.
Click here to read the cover story in IP Law & Business featuring our District Court victory in the Lemelson case, in which every associate examined a trial witness.
|
|
- Won a jury trial for our client Praxair in a patent case
in Delaware involving industrial gas dispensers. Every associate
had a speaking role at trial, including cross-examination and
arguing motions. Click
here to read more about our associates' experience
on this case.
- Obtained $250 million settlement for Transmeta in patent
infringement case against Intel relating to eleven patents
on various computer processor power-saving and architectural
technologies. Cited as one of three "big cases" by
IP Law & Business in 2006.
- Defended a multi-patent case involving automotive rearview
mirrors for our client Gentex Corporation in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the E.D. Wisconsin. Following the Markman ruling,
the patentee stipulated to non-infringement of one patent.
After a 9-day trial, the Court found the second patent invalid,
not infringed and unenforceable.
 |
|
Click
here to read about associate Brian Biddinger's (Fordham University School of Law '02) experiences with the Gentex trial. |
- Won an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) case for
our client AstraZeneca, who sued generic drug maker Mayne
Pharmaceutical for infringing patents relating to an anesthetic
preservative.
 |
|
Associates Gabrielle Ciuffreda (University
of Pennsylvania Law School '01), Brandon
Stroy (Columbia Law School '06), Neal Dahiya (New York University '03), and Janice Jabido (Tulane University '06) work on a patent litigation
for Becton Dickinson relating to blood glucose monitors. |
- Represent Motorola against Research In Motion in litigations
involving patents relating to wireless telecommunications
devices and systems.
- Persuaded a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit to
reconsider and vacate its prior decision against our client
Purdue Pharma in a high-profile pharmaceutical case involving
chronic pain relief medication.
 |
|
Many of our cases are staffed across offices. Linda
Rost, Tom Wang (Stanford Law School '03), Kelly
Baxter (Santa Clara University School of Law '04),
Adam
Goldman, and Henry Huang (Harvard Law School '01),
worked closely with lawyers in our New York
office on Purdue
Pharma. To read about Kelly's experience with this case, click
here. |
- Represent LG Electronics against Quanta Computer in litigation
asserting patents that are generally directed to DVD recording
and playback technology
- Tried a patent case involving transistor drive circuitry
for our client Linear Technology in the Northern District of
California. Lawyers from our Washington and Palo Alto offices
tried the case following the Federal Circuit's rejection of
our adversary's “on-sale bar” defense. A decision
in this case is pending.
- Won at trial and then appeal in the First Circuit for the
Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI) on claims for unjust
enrichment and unfair business practices in connection with
the unjust use of MEEI's method for surgical treatment of macular
degeneration.
- Represented Sanyo Electric against Taiwanese chip maker Mediatek
in several patent cases in the Central District of California
and the Eastern District of Texas as part of our thriving Japanese
IP practice.
|
What kind of academic background do I need to be an IP litigator at Ropes & Gray?
It depends on what area of IP you want to practice in. Although a technical background is strongly preferred for patent litigation, it is not necessary. Some of our lawyers have become very successful trial lawyers without such a background. Other areas, such as trademark and copyright litigation, usually do not require a technical background.
|
 |
|
Jamie Lucia (George Washington University Law School ’06), right,
and Marina Len (Vanderbilt University Law School ’06), center, work
with partner, James Hopenfeld, on a patent litigation case. Like many of
our associates who specialize in patent litigation, Jamie and Marina had
technical academic backgrounds before going to law school. Jamie has a
B.A. in Chemistry and Marina has a B.S. in microbiology and a M.A. in molecular
biology. |
|
Will I have to choose between litigation and patent prosecution work?
We believe it's important for our associates to be exposed to the various aspects of our IP practice. For example, we believe that having some prosecution experience makes you a better litigator, and vice versa. That is why we encourage our associates to begin their careers by working on a mix of assignments suited to their interests. As their careers progress, many choose to gravitate toward a particular practice area of interest. Others continue to develop their expertise in a number of areas, managing a docket of prosecution matters while working on litigation matters.
|
 |
|
Associate Mike Burling (Boston
University School of Law '03), right, and partner Jim Badke both
work on a patent case involving fiberglass dental posts used to support
a dental crown following a root canal. |
|
|
|
|
